Out of the Past

I voted for Stanton because I would take 82 games of good performance over 132 games of league average performance. Huh?? :blink: That's what the stats say... actually just a bit below.

If I need a base runner, I trust Morrison. If I need a sac fly or home run, I trust Stanton. If I need an RBI with a RISP, I trust Sanchez. I'm not using stats here, this is just who I trust if we needed each of the following. As far as the rookie of the year, it's Sanchez simply because he's been consistently above average all year, while Stanton and Morrison just recently came onto the scene. Morrison and Stanton will in all likelihood have better seasons than Sanchez next year, but this year belongs to Gaby. But he hasn't. He's 2 runs below league average according to the WAR calculation.

I voted for Stanton because I would take 82 games of good performance over 132 games of league average performance. I don't get this. So lets say next year Gaby does what he's done this year over the first 132 games. Great. Then Stanton next year performs well in 82 games but drops off the fricken map and performs terribly for 50 games which gets him sent down. You still pick Stanton over Gaby? The thing is Stanton's 82 games + 50 games of a some AAA player would outperform Gaby's 132 games by 12 runs. Stanton has played so well and the gap in performance is so wide that it's Stanton even with Gaby's 50 game advantage.

I voted for Stanton because I would take 82 games of good performance over 132 games of league average performance.

I say Stanton. Games: Gaby: 132 Stanton: 82 Logan: 43 OPS+: Gaby: 113 Stanton: 121 Logan: 140 OBP / SLG / OPS: Gaby: .346 / .461 / .808 Stanton: .317 / .529 / .846 Logan: .418 / .482 / .900 Rtot and Rdrs / year: Gaby: -6 and -1 Stanton: +11 and +12 Logan: -4 and -5 WAR: Gaby: 1.3 Stanton: 1.9 Logan: 1.1

Even San Diego's non-Heath Bell relievers are 2/12 in "save opps". That is a completely unfair way to use that stat. 2/12 is not as bad as 2/18. San Francisco's relievers not named Brian are 8/19 which is a lot better than 2/18. Those 16 blown saves by guys not named Leo are the reason we lead the league in blown saves. We've blown 24 saves as a team. The MLB average is 16. Our save % is 56% vs. 69% for the league average. It's not really 2/18 though. Those aren't save opportunities, just save situations, you're just going saves vs blown saves, which happened when the pitcher wasn't going to get a save regardless. To get a real look at things you need to look at their holds as well. That's how baseball-reference shows it in the team stats page and it agrees with the ESPN team total stats page so I assume this is an official stat. With that said, I should have said that we've blown 16 saves in the middle innings instead of saying 2 out of 18. I had a feeling our middle relievers led the league in blown saves and wanted to compare with other teams but I don't know where to find that info so was going one by one among teams that have had the same closer for almost the entire year so you know that the blown saves by a middle reliever were in the middle innings. You can't compare to the Phillies for example for this purpose.

Leo is mediocre at best for a closer and yes he gets some of the blame but the middle relievers have us at the top in the blowing leads category.

Even San Diego's non-Heath Bell relievers are 2/12 in "save opps". That is a completely unfair way to use that stat. 2/12 is not as bad as 2/18. San Francisco's relievers not named Brian are 8/19 which is a lot better than 2/18. Those 16 blown saves by guys not named Leo are the reason we lead the league in blown saves. We've blown 24 saves as a team. The MLB average is 16. Our save % is 56% vs. 69% for the league average.

The relievers not named Leo are 2 out 18 in save opportunities. Tank and Hensley lead the way each 0 for 3.

Also, it's worth mentioning, because Major League Baseball and the Nationals suck, Nyjer Morgan will be playing today. Did they reduce his suspensions? I haven't heard anything. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/09/nyjer_morgan_ruling_delayed_do.html#comments He's playing tonight. They heard his appeal today but the final ruling hasn't come down. There's nothing wrong with him playing. Volstad is pitching Sunday and there's nothing wrong with that either.

There will always be a whipping boy What is this supposed to mean? I detect a hint of condescension here, so forgive me if I am mistaken. It's not like everyone is perplexed as to why the Marlins are missing the playoffs this season and need someone to take out their anger upon. And there doesn't have to be someone purely designated to be torn apart. Intelligent fans who like to discuss and analyze their team will always point out weaknesses and poor moves made by the GM's office. This is a constructive activity. Wes Helms is being called out for good reason. He doesn't produce on the field and is making (and will be again in 2011) more money than he should be, based upon his performance. For a cash starved team, spending $1 million on an easily replaced commodity like Wes Helms is cause for anger, when one realizes that money could be spent on improving the bullpen, which is a real weakness for the team. Every million counts when you are the Marlins. People sharply criticized Cantu, Bonifacio, and whomever else because they weren't producing and were blocking better players, not because they were hungry to find someone to unleash their rage upon. Being permanent optimist toward poorly producing players is a superficiality that many of us do not want to have integrated with our fandom. This is the only part I disagree with. According to Fangraphs.com, 2010 is the first season the Marlins have paid him more than what he's worth on the open market. And even at that, they're only overpaying him by 150k. If he returns to the form of previous years next year, he will once again justify his salary. Worth vs. Actual Salary: 06: $7.3 million vs. $800k 08: $1.1 million vs. $1 09: $2.0 million vs. 950k 10: $800k vs. 950k Those Fangraphs "worth" amounts are ridiculous. This year for example he's playing below replacement level (3 runs below replacement) so if we had 25 players as "good" as Wes we would have a winning percentage around .300 so no he's not worth $800k.

I just don't understand why the FO was so hasty in awarding Helms a contract for next season? Were they afraid he was going to play himself out of our price range, because somehow I doubt that. The FO just wanted to make sure he stayed here to provide the type of "leadership" he provided during the Nationals brawl game. I bet without Wes on the team whining about stolen bases there wouldn't have being a fight.

One change I would make to the BCS Championship game is that in order to play in the game your strengh of schedule has to be in the top 50% of Division 1 (or whatever they call it now). So for example last year Boise State had the 96th strongest schedule so they couldn't play in the game. This would prevent teams in crap conferences with weak schedules from playing in the championship game and would also encourage teams from the BCS conferences to play better non-conference schadules. Last year PSU had the 73 strongest schedule so with this rule they couldn't play in the championship game even if they had gone undefeated and were ranked No. 1.

Yeah lets honor #6 on the all time wife beater list.http://joshqpublic.com/2006/04/28/whos-beating-who-wife-beaters-in-sports/ I've got an honor for him. Asshat. I thought you guys were kidding :confused No he really is a convicted wife beater. WOW, a convicted one. :thumbdown He's not.

Isnt mediocre? I mean... he's below the average for some standard pitching statistics. He had a 4.2 WAR last season and a 3.8 WAR the season before. He isn't mediocre. He had a -0.3 WAR last season and a 3.7 WAR the season before. This season he has a 1.3 WAR. His career ERA is 4.45 and his career ERA+ is 96. His career WAR is 4.2 in five seasons. His stats say he's mediocre. Where did you get those stats, because they are completely different than Fangraphs. According to them, he has a 2.4 WAR this year, 4.2 last year, and a 3.8 the year before, which is not mediocre. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nolasri01.shtml#pitching_value Baseball-reference bases WAR on runs allowed and factors in team defense. I think fangraphs uses FIP. The difference in Nolasco's WAR in both sites is huge.

Isnt mediocre? I mean... he's below the average for some standard pitching statistics. He had a 4.2 WAR last season and a 3.8 WAR the season before. He isn't mediocre. He had a -0.3 WAR last season and a 3.7 WAR the season before. This season he has a 1.3 WAR. His career ERA is 4.45 and his career ERA+ is 96. His career WAR is 4.2 in five seasons. His stats say he's mediocre.

I'm assuming the contract would be at a minimum $6 million per year and it's not a good idea to give long term contracts for that kind of money to mediocre players.

This is horrible news. Ugggggh. Unless we go $60 million+ salary next year, it's going to be tough to get good production from C against RHP next year. That's bad news. Barry Jackson wrote a few days ago the payroll would be about $50 million next year. Yeah, but BroncoBob says $60 million, so I'll wait and see. It seems like it'll be pretty hard to compete with that payroll, and Baker being out for almost the whole year just makes it tougher. Barry talks to people with information and I wouldn't put any weight on anything BroncoBob says about anything.

This is horrible news. Ugggggh. Unless we go $60 million+ salary next year, it's going to be tough to get good production from C against RHP next year. That's bad news. Barry Jackson wrote a few days ago the payroll would be about $50 million next year.

Sirspud. Would it bump your opinion of JJ if he had his numbers through the first 6 inning and then Cliff Lee's mediocre numbers through the last 3 innings, but also had Lee's deeper games? I mean, as I pointed out, Lee's numbers this year in those innings are worse than the average pen guy. Looking at his BB, K and HR numbers from innings 1-6 and from 7-9 his FIP is only about 0.25 to 0.30 worse in innings 7-9 but his BAbip skyrockets from .267 to .351 so the higher ERA is because of the higher BAbip. I don't where to get hit trajectory data by inning so maybe he deserves that .351 and the inflated ERA that goes with it but maybe he does not... we're talking abkut 40 innings here which is a small sample size. Anyway, pitchers that go deep into games are awesome.

I was looking at the homerun park factors (over the past three years) and one thing that surprised me is that the Busch Stadium HR park factor is 0.81 (4th toughest in MLB) making Pujols' homerun numbers even more amazing. Sun Life is 10th toughest at 0.92.

I would never frame who the best players are over a 130 game sample size. Go by two or three seasons. Also, I'm not a fan of FIP because it ignores almost all batted balls and also ignores homerun park factors which is very important given that homeruns allowed make up so much of the FIP number but I agree that it's debatable what's preferable between FIP and ERA+. To me it's obvious but it's debatable. However FIP over 130 games DOESN'T determine who the best pitchers are and this is not debatable.

He's without question a top 10 pitcher but it's debatable whether he's a top 5. Going by FIP numbers, he's #3 so in that respect it's not debatable. He's a top 5 guy for 2010 season. If you want to consider overall talent, then yes, it's debatable. I don't go by FIP and I don't go just based on 130 games... at least go by a couple of years worth of performance. If you're going to use just one stat I would use ERA+. Do you consider FIP over 130 games to be a be-all end-all type of stat?

He's without question a top 10 pitcher but it's debatable whether he's a top 5.

The question at hand is whether the Marlins are choosing not to spend rather than not spending because they can't. I don't understand how you could possibly look at Operating Income and judge by that. Companies use creditors to fund their operations. It's fairly safe to say that if they wouldn't have had interest expense (meaning, no loans) then they probably wouldn't have that same Operating Income. It'd be lower because you can't expend owners to fund everything exclusively. Not to mention the fact that owners are already losing money here. There is a new ballpark around the corner, full of new revenue opportunities and a higher possiblity of return. Are you telling me you wouldn't take a loan to finance your company if you knew the brighter days were ahead of you and not behind you? It depends. Some companies use credit for funding while others use cash and others use a combination of the two. I work for a company with subsidiaries all over Latin America and depending on the country the subs are either funded with capital contributions entirely or almost entirely by debt. In those cases it would be all debt except for token capital requirements some countries have. So you have to judge based on operating income as the interest expense will depend on the cash the owner wanted to invest into the business. Regarding the Marlins and the estimate for profits since Loria bought in '02, okay, lets use Net Income instead of Operatign Income. The estimate is between $80M to $90M while having the lowest payroll in MLB. It's better to use Operating Income but whatever.